Monday, May 18, 2009

From the Wires

Two . . . intriguing . . . items crossed my desk Friday.

The first came from Durham mayor Bill Bell. WTVD ran a lengthy story noting that Durham officials, including Bell, have complained again about Duke students’ off-campus partying—and some of the student behavior in Tamara Gibbs’ story is disgusting (although, I suspect, not exactly unheard of in any college or university town in the country, not just Durham).

To accompany the story, WTVD posted a letter sent by Bell to Richard Brodhead, dated March 25, 2009. Bell attached to the letter a four-page “report” produced by an entity called “Trinity Heights Action Committee.” (The four-person committee included two Duke faculty members: Music professor Philip Rupprecht; and Cathy Shuman, a “visiting assistant professor” in the English Department.)

Bell’s inclusion of the document would seem to constitute an official endorsement of its contents. Three sentences from the entity’s report particularly jumped out.

The first:

The 2006 Lacrosse incident thrust the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses into a national media spotlight.

This sentence provides what could charitably be described as an unusual take on the legacy of the lacrosse case. Perhaps the Trinity Heights entity has access to information not in the public domain. But there would seem to be at best an indirect relationship between “the 2006 Lacrosse incident” and “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses.” At least as defined in the Gibbs story, “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses” included such behavior as loudness that triggers noise complaints or littering or destroying property on neighbors’ yards. Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party, nor did any of the neighbors allege that any of the players hurled trash or other items onto their yards, or broke any of their property.

In that respect, it seems as if the sentence provides yet another reminder of the attitude of the “Durham street” toward the lacrosse players.

The second sentence:

Although this [2006 Lacrosse] incident had enormous negative consequences—legal and financial—for both Duke and Durham, it is by no means clear that Duke has yet enacted any major changes of policy for off-campus student life in response.

This sentence, to put it bluntly, makes no sense. It connects two events ([1] the “enormous negative consequences—legal and financial—for both Duke and Durham” and [2] Duke policies toward “off-campus student life”) that have no direct relationship.

The “negative” legal and financial consequences to Durham resulted from legal fees to defend lawsuits alleging federal civil rights violations against Duke students. The “negative” legal and financial consequences to Duke resulted from various legal fees, and from settlement costs to avoid a lawsuit from the falsely accused players that would have focused on dubious decisions and actions by Duke's administrators and faculty.

I can see how these “negative” legal and financial consequences might have prompted Durham to undertake a comprehensive study of the DPD’s abuses of procedures (which the city hasn’t done, to no apparent concern of the Trinity Heights Action Committee). And I can see how these “negative” legal and financial consequences might have prompted Duke to undertake a comprehensive study of whether the university’s faculty hiring policies have produced a culture of groupthink and disregard for student rights under the handbook and the faculty bulletin (which the University hasn’t done, to no apparent concern of the Trinity Heights Action Committee).

But I don’t see how these “negative” legal and financial consequences have anything to do, one way or the other, with Duke enacting “major changes of policy for off-campus student life.”

I emailed Prof. Rupprecht and Visiting Assistant Professor Shuman for guidance as to how the committee reached this unusual linkage. Neither responded.

This sentence marked the clearest yet official Durham statement that the Duke Police Department also had jurisdiction over events at 610 N. Buchanan. (This item was most spectacularly revealed in the initial Ekstrand lawsuit filing.) This official Durham statement—in a letter to Brodhead, no less!—raises at least three serious questions.

One: Are there actions that still haven’t been revealed undertaken by the Duke Police Department as part of its “joint jurisdiction over off-campus neighborhoods” in the lacrosse case?

Two: Who at Duke made the decision to defer to the Durham Police Department in an incident over which—according to this Bell letter—“Duke Campus Police share[d] joint jurisdiction”?

Three: Given that “Duke Campus Police shares joint jurisdiction over off-campus neighborhoods with Durham PD,” why did Richard Brodhead assert, on April 5, 2006, “Frustrating though it is, Duke must defer its own investigation until the police inquiry is completed, first because the police have access to key witnesses, warrants, and information that we lack, and second because our concurrent questioning could create a risk of complications—for instance, charges of witness tampering—that could negatively affect the legal proceedings?” Brodhead's statement would appear to be irreconcilable with the assertions in the March 2009 Bell letter.

----------------------

The second item came from the New York Times, which published a fawning review of its former star sports columnist’s book. Nicholas Dawidoff, author of several books on baseball, reviewed Selena Roberts’ A-Rod with less skepticism than might be expected in a high school newspaper.

Since virtually all sensational allegations from Roberts’ book came from primary sources, analyzing her book all but requires discussing her credibility. But in the previous high-profile item covered by Roberts, her writing indicated that she had no journalistic credibility at all. She combined outright errors of fact with wild exaggerations or distortions—and then, when called to account for her words, she simply lied about what she wrote.

But even though Roberts’ embarrassing coverage of the lacrosse case has received extensive attention, Dawidoff’s review doesn’t even mention it. Someone whose sole encounter with Roberts came from Dawidoff’s review would never have known that Roberts’ work on the lacrosse case was so poor that it helped produce an apology from Times editors. Dawidoff, instead, hails Roberts as an “enterprising investigator” in his review.

Having elected to ignore questions about Roberts’ credibility, Dawidoff proceeds to accept all of her book’s claims without apparent skepticism. In 1,223 words, Dawidoff never once expresses any doubts about even one item in Roberts’ book.

Two of Roberts’ (anonymously sourced) claims about A-Rod havegeneratedthemostdoubts: (1) her assertion that A-Rod probably used steroids in high school; and (2) her revelation that Rangers officials allegedly noticed A-Rod tipping pitches when he played in Texas. The first has generated strong doubts from several people who were on Rodriguez’ high school teams; the second has produced widespread skepticism centered on the paucity of Roberts’ evidence.

Dawidoff’s analysis of these allegations? As with doubts about Roberts’ credibility because of her lacrosse case errors, Dawidoff has no interest in exploring the matter. Instead, he writes of Roberts’ portrayal: “Makes sense to me.”

This obvious journalistic puff-piece by Nicholas Dawidoff makes me even sadder over the state of so much journalism today.

Eons ago, when I was a newspaper reporter, someone like Selena Roberts would have been quickly called to account, even at the relatively modest newspapers where I worked. Back then, reporting and writing at a newspaper was not interchangeable with writing for the National Enquirer.

And she got a position at The New York Times! Time was when landing a job with the The New York Times was equated with going to heaven.

I wish I could believe the plummeting standards among some reporters and editors was only due to the precarious financial condition of so many top news organizations. Alas, Selena Roberts is one more example showing that the rot goes deeper.

I keep telling them, we'll stop drinking and partying off-campus the same day Durham residents agree to stop mugging, raping, and killing us. Since the Lacrosse case was a hoax, I'm having trouble thinking of the last time a Duke student committed a violent act against a Durham resident. However, both Duke and UNC lost students last year at the hands of Durham residents and students continue to get robbed in the Duke Gardens, off Erwin Road, and around East Campus. Maybe we should start a Quad Action Committee and write a report about how Durham is creating a culture of violence and crime? Besides, there as a report about Campus Culture. Anyone remember the CCI? Apparently neither does the administration...

KC wrote...Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party, nor did any of the neighbors allege that any of the players hurled trash or other items onto their yards, or broke any of their property.The only thing "hurled" on that night were epithets and even then my pluralising may be inaccurate.

I read a couple of weeks ago about a group that was supposedly out to 'help' Duke students not to drink or play their stereos loud, and this organization, if I remember correctly, sure seemed to be somehow associated to the Trinity Heights neighborhood. Has anyone else heard about this group? I dont know if there is any connection, but if there is, it should be spelled out. I dont want to jump the gun on this but I just dont trust some of the people in that neighborhood, and Im sure they dont have the safety and health of Duke students uppermost in their minds.

It is simply disgusting to see that some of the same people who marched in the "castrate" parade, and who otherwise joined in the lynch mob, are now seeking to use the Lacrosse Frame Job to benefit themselves.

But, I guess if they were the type of people who would use third-hand gossip to railroad innocent students and benefit their agenda of "cleaning up the neighborhood" back then, it shouldn't suprise me that they'd do it now.

I agree with the poster above. An investigation would be nice. I know the Liestoppers board had a bunch of messages from the Trinity Heights Listserv showing them at their judgment-rushing best. Are those messages still available? I'd love to look over them again. MOO! Gregory

Shouldn't this LAX reference be added to the exhibits as further evidence that the LAX students were and remain injured by the actions of Duke and Durham?

That is, these innuendos will continue to surface until Duke and Durham admit publicly that they were wrong, that the LAX were innocent of charges, that the rape charges were bogus, and that both Duke and Durham have paid significant funds to the injured LAX student and acted to prevent recurrence.

In previous years, when The NY Times fact checkers were thorough in their vetting of information contained in Times pieces, my husband would often be called as an independent source regarding wine issues. It would seem that in the budget crises affecting the Grey Lady that fact checkers have taken a hit - their services either no longer required or at the very least, so few that they are overburdened and therefore cannot do the job they once did. Maureen Dowd's plagiarism of a paragraph from a liberal blogger (in this past Sunday's op-ed piece) is just the latest example of how journalism and journalists has lost its way.cks

The letter sent to President Brodhead lists no author and is not signed. Who wrote it?The letter sent to President Broadhead is titled ...Off Campus Housing...not behavior.The report sent to President Brodhead is not signed.The Trinity Heights Action Committee is not a governing body.

If Durham is suggesting the possibility of legal action against Duke to recover past, current and future expenditures (The legal actions currently moving through the courts) by inflaming the public I suspect the judge handing the case is not going to be amused.

Looks like really bad Durham City Council theatre to me. Perhaps Durham County will move to purchase or seize The City of Durham in Act II.::GP

I agree with you completely that the letter--which was addressed, after all, to Brodhead--was designed "to get Brodhead's attention."

That said, one of the unfortunate elements of an official letter--especially from a municipality subject to a lawsuit--is that intending to get someone's attention is unlikely to be an excuse in litigation for factual accuracy.

I also am unaware of any evidence that Mayor Bell would deliberately send a letter he knew or should have known was factually inaccurate--that's a quite serious allegation to make.

It is interesting to me that WTVD's Tamara Gibbs "exposee" waits until 4/5 of the way through her piece to inform the viewers that "complaints about Duke students are down this year from last year. Is it her position and that of the Trinity Park nerds that Duke's college students should not act like all other college students in their neighborhood.?

Someone in Trinity Park is either selling or leasing their "fine homes" to Duke students. Maybe the Trinity Park nerds should pass a regulation at their next Homeowners Association Meeting that prohibits the sale or lease of any real estate within 1,000 tards of Trinity Park to any human being under 75 years of age and further prohibit subleasing to Duke students or the University itself.

Isn't it hilarious that these pillars of Durham "society" expect us to believe that they NEVER drabk as underrage college student, played loud music, or failed to pick up garbage from parties.

I grew up in Durham and went to Duke(although I do not wish to be identified as having something in common with Bobby Steele) and there were similar incidents(usually small in nature) in the 60's and 70's.

I'm actually willing to cut the Committee letter writers some slack here. I think you parsed this statement incorrectly:

The 2006 Lacrosse incident thrust the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses into a national media spotlight.Ok, a reasonably summary of the "incident" is that it was thrust into the national media spotlight because of the accusations that a heinous crime had taken place. Then the accusations of the heinous crimes were proven to be a hoax, and it became clear that all that had happened was that an obnoxious party had taken place. So, yes, this is quite literally true -- once the hoax had been exposed, what was left was adolescent obnoxiousness being thrust into the media spotlight.

I think that there has always been a danger of "defining deviency down" as a reaction to the hoax. The players certainly have never minimized the obnoxious nature of what they had done, and they apologized for it. So I don't think that those of us who defended the players from the false charges need to be trying to falsify the true ones -- which is that they, like multitudes of other college students, were obnoxious and irresponsible.

I think that there is a valuable object lesson here for young people and it is completely appropriate for us to wag fingers at them and lecture. If you drink so much that you think that watching a skanky whore dance is a good idea, then we can come to your aid if said whore makes outrageous accusations against you. But usually the consequences of irresponsibility are natural and there is no appeal. You drive drunk and kill someone. You don't do your homework and so you are ignorant for the rest of your life. You stagger out of a bar after midnight on a sub-zero winter night and fall down (that's what falling-down drunk means) and they don't find your frozen body until morning.

College students engage in this obnoxious and risky behaviour all of the time, and yes, it was "thrust into the spotlight" as a result of the rape hoax.

To make a long story short: A lot of corruption in N.C. State University Board of Trustees, and at UNC.

Local US Attorney is investigating these (and other Easley and John Edwards related alleged crimes, and as part of the politicization of DOJ - as KC stated several times - he will be fired and replaced by more friendly US Attorney).

I too have "no doubt" that A-Rod took steroids in high school. I have no proof however, and I am not required to supply any either, as I'm just a Joe Schmoe commenting on it. Ms. Roberts has as much proof as I do, so I shall deem her "Jane Schmoe". She will make scads more money than I will this year, with less credibility, talent and work in her chosen field. America has been good to her.

With regards to both : Anytime anybody brings up anything related, even peripherally, to the Duke lacrosse case, they seem to forget they'll be bringing up everything they'd prefer be forgotten. I suspect that's why virtually no feminist blogs (I mean the radical, not reasonable sane feminists blogs) are discussing Selena Roberts' A-Rod book. It inevitably brings up the Duke case.

Everyone can understand residents not wanting their neighborhoods overrun with loud partying and obnoxious behavior from university students, but every town or city housing a school must deal with these issues.

Most know how to deal with such an environment without stirring up the local police department and targeting the students at every turn.

And it's not an excuse for unruly behavior, but people must know before buying a home next to a university campus that this will be a feature of living in such a place.

For those who do not live in the Triangle, I should note that the neighborhoods surrounding the other school in Durham---NCCU---are often rowdy and dangerous.

Cars are parked on the sides of the streets willy nilly.

There is rampant crime all around.

But we do not hear such an outcry from the towns people.

Lastly, from all public accounts, Duke University has always been a very generous neighbor.

The 2006 Lacrosse incident thrust the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses into a national media spotlight.

This sentence provides what could charitably be described as an unusual take on the legacy of the lacrosse case. Perhaps the Trinity Heights entity has access to information not in the public domain. But there would seem to be at best an indirect relationship between “the 2006 Lacrosse incident” and “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses.” At least as defined in the Gibbs story, “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses” included such behavior as loudness that triggers noise complaints or littering or destroying property on neighbors’ yards. Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party, nor did any of the neighbors allege that any of the players hurled trash or other items onto their yards, or broke any of their property.+ + + + + +

According to the Duke Chronicle a neighbor did make a noise complaint:

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/3291

Jennie Fant, a resident of 711 Watts St., and library assistant in the Gross Chemistry Building, said she thinks she heard someone batting a ball for an hour against the wall of the Buchanan Boulevard residence the night of the party.

"I don't know if it was to cover the noise," Fant said.

She added that she called 911 probably at about 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. with a noise complaint. According to Jason Bissey's affidavit, he considered notifying the police:

http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/901

8. Because of the agitated nature of the men in the alley and in front of my residence, I kept a close watch on the situation. I was weary of revealing my presence to the group of men for fear of some kind of reaction or retaliation, as the tenor of their dialogue seemed quite heated at that point. Through the windows of my house I monitored the situation, debating with myself whether notifying the police would be a prudent course of action.

>>>Neighbors making a complaint with Student Affairs against student behavior are entitled to confidentiality if they so request; they also deserve to know the outcome of specific complaints.<<<

Excuse me, but aren't university records, including disciplinary records, covered by a federal privacy statute (FERPA)? Since when are "[n]eighbors making a complaint . . . ENTITLED to confidentiality"? (emphasis added)

>>>Many of these residences are sub-standard, and unsafe for large groups.<<<

If they are so unsafe, shouldn't there be a building code violation against the landlord? Aren't there local regulations against having more than a specific number of unrelated people living in one residence? If so, shouldn’t the landlord be held responsible if the rules are broken?

I returned yesterday from the West Coast where my son graduated from college. I had not seen his "apartment" until I arrived last Thursday night. I felt awful and very guilty, he was living in a dump and a firetrap. I asked him why he had put up with it the whole year. He felt "there was nothing he could do" I told him I would have figured something out, had I known. Because of the distance his "frat brothers" had rented the house before he got out there in August. The rent was rediculous, the deposit we will never see, and I am counting the hours until he leaves to come home. (fortunately he can climb out a window in case of fire).I had planned on cleaning his room and "part of the house" but it was hopeless, so I packed him up and left.

It is a circle that us adults are responsible for. The students don't take care of things, so people rent them dumps, they don't feel any need to take care of it because it is a dump and the circle continues. My question is, do we have a disaster (fire)or floor/house collapse, and students die before anyone does anything. The people that rent to these students are slumlords and are getting away with it. This house is falling apart, I am sure the electrical load in this old house was not up to code in regard to all the electronics that were in the house, but no one cares. Some of the homes in Durham are the same, they are houses, chopped up into apartments, old wiring, some in poor condition, that no one really takes care of and they rent to students who will put up with it.People expect college kids to be messy, destructive etc and some are, but that doesn't mean adults should be able to take advantage of that and rent dumps that are unsafe. I am thankful that we "dodged a disaster" this past year. I encourage parents to know where their kids are living, even if it means an 8 hour plane trip to move them in each year.

I think the issues are separate, no matter how loud the parties, how rowdy the kids, the "line is crossed" when you accuse young men of rape and rent dumps to students. The city, university and students all need to work together on the rental issue. The city needs to get the slum lords to improve their property, kids need to respect the property and refuse to rent the dumps and the university needs to support their students. This problem is not unique to Duke, but I suspect there will be a disaster somewhere, an uproar and then nothing.

I received my warning last week, I won't need another one and am so thankful that there was not a disaster involved.

Sounds like a good project for Parents Associations or Alumni or the Trinity Park Association. One would think they might benefit from the proximity of college students if they worked on things instead of constant conflict and complaining. If this is "part of the college" experience, I am glad we are past it, intact and no thanks for anymore.

>>>Student Affairs has told us that LEGAL RESTRAINTS prevent full communication to complainants of disciplinary actions against students whose behavior is found to violate City ordinances. But this lack of feed-back perpetuates a sense that documented disruptive behavior off-campus is never held accountable and rarely punished. We do not ask Duke to compromise the privacy of its students (and we expect equally that the privacy of residents complaining will be respected). What neighbors need to see is clear evidence that students are being held accountable.[!]<<< (emphasis added)

Why should neighbors receive "equal[] . . .privacy of residents" How is a student supposed to have a defense against an anonymous complaint? Or is it supposed to be set up like a grand jury with no transcripts, so the defendant is flailing against the unseen?

Reminder: 6th Amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . .be confronted with the witnesses against him” (except in the State of Injustice,” you know, the one sometimes called North Carolina). Okay, a complaint to DU about students is not usually a criminal complaint, but since the City wants a “zero tolerance” toward students, doesn’t that mean that the City and/or residents want (demand) criminal charges?

Isn’t this just what a certain “civil rights” organization did, claims that civil rights should not be violated, while at the same time essentially demand that laws be broken, rights be ignored? In this case, the City apparently wants a new law: Those making criminal complaints (the neighbors) should be entitled to do so under the cover of confidentiality.)

I don't believe that someone claiming several days later that he was considering making a noise complaint and actually making a noise complaint constitute the same thing. When the police actually got around to interviewing Bissey (when the special prosecutors took over the case), he was asked whether he had any complaints about the conduct of his neighbors. He said that his most serious concern was that they sometimes parked their cars in a difficult fashion. (If that's the standard the Trinity Heights entity uses for troublesome parties, then every resident of Manhattan would be on their list.)

As to the first alleged noise complaint, perhaps this alleged call was on the 911 calls that the Durham Police Department erased--since there appears to be no record of such a complaint, nor a response by the Durham Police to the alleged complaint. Or perhaps Ms. Fant dialed the wrong number when she allegedly made her complaint. Or perhaps Ms. Fant, motivated by the potbanger spirit then powerful in Trinity Park, "remembered" that she had made a complaint when, in fact, she had not done so.

"Because of the agitated nature of the men in the alley and in front of my residence, I kept a close watch on the situation. I was weary of revealing my presence to the group of men for fear of some kind of reaction or retaliation, as the tenor of their dialogue seemed quite heated at that point. Through the windows of my house I monitored the situation, debating with myself whether notifying the police would be a prudent course of action."

**********************************

This is simply nutty.

It reads like dialogue from a bad Vincent Price horror flick that someone just decided to keep inside the can.......or on the cutting room floor.

A contrived omen, probably after the fact....as well as very bad delivery.

"This mostly strikes me as KC reading way too much into a letter (again) that's mostly designed to get Brodhead's attention than be factually accurate. Shocker."

9:05, are you suggesting that if a particular end is desired -- such as getting attention -- it is acceptable to sacrifice factual accuracy (which, if done deliberately, is known by the shorter name of "lying"?)

If you cannot achieve your ends without resorting to lies, it may be a hint that you are not in fact entitled to your ends after all.

KC said:When the police actually got around to interviewing Bissey (when the special prosecutors took over the case), he was asked whether he had any complaints about the conduct of his neighbors. He said that his most serious concern was that they sometimes parked their cars in a difficult fashion.+ + + + + +

Hmmm? I recall LS's Tony Soprano posting that "Bissey hated the players - so did Curtis and others." It was Bissey's roommate Derek Anderson who told Himan the neighbors blocked the alley with their cars. Bissey should have been asked if, on the night in question, anyone next door caused him any concern - if anyone next door appeared agitated or if the dialogue ever seemed "quite heated" or - if he was weary of revealing his presence to the group of men "for fear of some kind of reaction or retaliation." That is what he claimed in his affidavit.

KC said:I don't believe that someone claiming several days later that he was considering making a noise complaint and actually making a noise complaint constitute the same thing.+ + + + + +

I don't either. Did you think I posted that I did? Perhaps this type of response is what 8:20 PM considers "wickedly dishonest?" What was the point of your claim, "Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party?" Are you claiming that since no one you deem credible claimed to have called the police then it could not be an example of the "disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses?” The neighbors who did not call the police should be commended for their patience.

The hispanic girl was in her driver's side seat, while the black girl was circling the car yelling. Her boobs were exposed and I thought that we were going to get a noise violation and that she was going to get a "public nudity" charge.

Danny was trying to calm the girl down. She had left our house with her purse and street clothes. The black girl was going around barefoot, with her purse and shoes inside. I tried to convince her to go inside and get them as an attempt to get her out of the street.

~snip~

They left out the back door. At this point Matt and I locked the house. We sat inside and heard a loud knocking. We heard the black yelling "Fuck You" and all kinds of cursing. She was still very drugged up. At this point I was fed up and went next door and called my girlfriend "Maddie" on my cell phone. Whenever I hung up with her was when the hispanic girl drove away.

~snip~

-When she did I heard lots of yelling from the guys on our team who were on the East Campus wall. She stopped her car and yelled "That's a racial slur, that's a hate crime."

I don't think "unwickedly" is a word. I think they meant to distinguish you from the virtuously dishonest.

Since it is difficult to believe that those G88 members who signed the so-called "clarifying statement" didn't know how dishonest it was, I can only assume they would consider themselves to be virtuously dishonest.

Anonymous @5/18/09 1:43 PM said...Someone in Trinity Park is either selling or leasing their "fine homes" to Duke students. Maybe the Trinity Park nerds should pass a regulation at their next Homeowners Association Meeting that prohibits the sale or lease of any real estate within 1,000 tards of Trinity Park to any human being under 75 years of age and further prohibit subleasing to Duke students or the University itself.Are there actually 1000 'tards in Trinity Park?

As far as I can tell, your new post appears to be acknowledging, as I wrote in the post, that "no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party, nor did any of the neighbors allege that any of the players hurled trash or other items onto their yards, or broke any of their property."

Many thanks for your confirmation of this point.

If you wish to offer any evidence to the contrary, please do so. Otherwise, I'm sure there are other blogs that allow you to post comments containing extraneous slams on the character of current and former Duke students.

KC said:I don't believe that someone claiming several days later that he was considering making a noise complaint and actually making a noise complaint constitute the same thing. When the police actually got around to interviewing Bissey (when the special prosecutors took over the case), he was asked whether he had any complaints about the conduct of his neighbors.On the night of the party Bissey told a police officer he contemplated calling 911.

I did not acknowledge "no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party." Jason Bissey complained to an officer that night.

You failed to answer my question: What was the point of your claim, "Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party?" Are you claiming that since no one you deem credible claimed to have called the police then it could not be an example of the "disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses?"

I know that there is a problem of noise and partying for people living in a neighborhood adjacant to a p[lace where thousands of young people are living under institutional conditions with laws that make them criminals for having a beer.But really, the woman sitting on her front porch in her blue jeans and her black tie up shoes and plain haircut and plain glasses and her determinedly severe demeanor was ridiculous-I bet she thinks she's a liberal progressive when she's actually just become a really crabby sanctimonious really middle-aged person-I bet she never id really party.I wish that she could have her youth back and maybe make a few mistakes herself to help her understand the problems of today's wayward youth.It was ever thus.

No, KC is not reading too much into this missive at all. The letter is part of an ongoing, if retro-active, mentioning of what did not happen. Why not refer to the "real" and actual rape that happened near Duke. That party has largely been ignored. It was one that, if memory serves, had drugs and alcohol and a gun to be sure not unlike the guns that were brought to Durham by some who would protest a behavior by Duke students that never happened, but who were nevertheless inflamed by an unknowing and ignorant Duke faculty. Indeed, the "disruptive and abusive" behaviors of the lacrosse non-incident were largely the manufactue of those who are now writing Brodhead. This group of enlighted intellectual and thugs didn't stop to think then, and they are not thinking now.

We clearly have a differing definition of what it takes to file a noise complaint with police.

My definition is that a person must actually call 911 with a noise complaint, and a record of that call must exist. I don't consider a person who says they called 911 to be credible if the police have no record of that call.

You, obviously, have a differing definition, as is your right, even though your definition appears not to be the commonly accepted one. So unless you can cite for me some Durham city guideline that upholds your . . . intriguing . . . definition of what constitutes a noise complaint, I'm afraid that you will have run afoul of section 4 of the comments policy.

Of course, calling 911 for a noise complaint is not exactly the purpose of that line. Our friend IMMY is trying to claim that if those lacrosse players made noise, then they raped Crystal Mangum. It is a most interesting chain of logic, but to most of us, it is a non sequitur.Bill, could you please support your assertion? Can you show us where I have EVER posted that I believe anyone at that party raped Crystal Mangum? I have never made that claim anywhere - not here, not at TalkLeft, not at EZDUKE (aka the Bat Cave), not ANYWHERE.

I see that IMMY is engaging in some comic relief. The so-called Cave exists for two reasons: (1) to continue the claims that Crystal Mangum was raped and that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans got away with the crime, and (2) to attack the lacrosse families and anyone else who is a supporter.

Since I don't go to the "Cave" and read all of the claims against the players and their families, I am not in a position to know what IMMY posts there. I do know that she was extremely supportive of Mike Nifong on Talk Left, and certainly at one time claimed that the lacrosse players raped Crystal.

If she is trying now to claim that she believed all along that the charges were a lie, then that certainly would be news to me and a lot of other people.

Libel: defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. b. the act or crime of publishing it. c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

I'm not sure who the "Bill" to whom you direct your comment is. While I'm sure there have been "libel" suits based on a blog comment thread, I can't say I know of any offhand.

That said, I'd urge you to direct your definition to he commenters who helped destroy the TalkLeft forum in 2006--such as "PB," "Lora," and a handful of others.

Thank you for your comment; unless you have anything relevant to offer, I fear that future comments from you would appear to run of section 4 of the comment policy.

On the other matter, like Bill Anderson, I am delighted to see that the commenter known as IMHO has recanted and now appears to concede that no attack occurred. A recantation on the false assertion that noise complaints were filed; and now a recantation on the insinuations that the players might have been guilty. And all in the span of 24 hours.

With all of their pot-banging, scheming on the ListServ, calls on police to arrest someone and vitriolic appearances on national television, the Trinity folk remind me of O.J. Simpson blaming Ron Goldman for making him notorious.

In response to earlier comments about the role of the "Trinity Park Lynch Mob" and, specifically, the Trinity Park Listserve:

Not everybody was quite so quick to join the mob, and perhaps a few have shown some mild hints of remorse in the aftermath. But,the first time I ever saw an invitation to the original Potbangers' Ball, was in fact on the TP listserve, circulated by TP'er David Auerbach, who incidentally has an email address at NC State, not Duke. And I still have it -- dated March 25.

As you can see, the forwarded message is absolutelyconclusive in its "factual" descriptions of ahorrible, racially-motivated gang-rape that, accordingto the email, undoubtedly occurred. So, later attemptsto paint the protest as more generically against rape(supposedly without pre-judging the LAX case) are, aswe know, just flat-out re-writing history.

Auerbach doesn't name the original authors, although we might infer his source from the names of thecontacts given at the end.

Just as an FYI for your Sunday morning, something Ireceived for someyoung friends (i.e., 1/3 my age or thereabouts).

Begin forwarded message:

>> Subject: Urgent! Pots-&-pans Wake-Up Call againstSexual Assault!> Sunday 3/26, 9am>> ~Heads up: This email contains sensitive informationabout a sexual> assault.~>> In the early hours of March 14 at 610 N. BuchananBlvd. two black> women went to work as exotic dancers for a DukeLacrosse Team party.> The women were surrounded and had racial slurs flungat them by the> aggressive men. The two dancers tried to leave butwere coaxed to> return. One of the women was pulled into a bathroomand raped,> sodomized, and beaten by at least three white menfor over half an> hour. The accusations are first-degree rape,kidnapping, assault by> strangulation and robbery, but the members of theDuke Lacrosse Team> are maintaining a strict code of silence. Y'all, asister- an NCCU> student and a mom of two- has been brutallyassaulted, and we need to> get together and make a big noise!>> 1) There is a peaceful candlelight vigil Saturdayevening (*tonight!*)> at 7pm at 610 Buchanan Blvd.>> 2) A group of concerned Durham residents areplanning a Wake-Up Call> against Sexual Assault on 9AM Sunday (*tomorrow!*)outside 610> Buchanan Blvd. This is a *peaceful* protest at thehouse where the> rape occurred. Duke officials say the house isrented by three> lacrosse team captains. We will not be trespassingonto the property-> we will line up along the sidewalk without blockingit. Dress warmly,> bring your whole family and bring pots and pans andthings to bang> them with! We are having a "Cacerolazo", or a pots &pans protest,> because it is a tool women all over the world use tocall out sexual> assaulters. Show up on time! If the police inform usthat neighbors> feel we are disturbing the peace, we will quietlydisperse.>> We are hitting the ground running on this one, soplease call at least> one person tonight and pass the word on yourneighborhood listservs.>>> Call Theo Luebke or Manju Rajendran to get in theloop and pitch in.> 919.618.0442 (Manju)> 919.824.5156 (Theo)>

We were in Durham for our son's graduation from Duke on Mothers' Day. He has been living in a house in Trinity Park with 3 other young men this year. It happens to be the house that they kept showing in the TV report you mentioned in this posting. They got in trouble because a group of TP residents complained about a loud party they had. It actually was that they turned out a group of guys who had been at their house, and the group continued to party outside the house. Some were Duke alums, some were not. Our son was not at the house at the time, but still got in trouble because he lives there. The music professor, Philip Ruprecht, was one of the people who brought them before the disciplinary board at Duke. He didn't care that my son would have a "black mark" on his record because he wasn't at the house, but told him that he would forgive him if he named all those who were involved. Thankfully the student/faculty board voted to exonerate our son.

The police, however, have continued to harass the guys in the house. They will park at one side or the other, just waiting for one of them to come out, or follow them in their cars occasionally if they go somewhere.

One neighbor, who lives cat-e-corner from them, wrote a letter to the Herald Sun (and to the Duke Chronicle) to complain about her fellow neighbors being so mean to the students and to say that she has never had a problem with them, and that her 18 mo. old baby has never been awakened by any noise in the neighborhood. She further complained that the Durham police had more important responsibilities in the neighborhood, the afore-mentioned robberies, assaults and murders by real criminals.

Our son and his roommates have had people try to come into their house, though the locked doors and windows seem to have been all they needed (plus they have a security system), and they have had things stolen from their cars if they are not locked. That is all that has happened to them, so I guess we are lucky that they have not been the victims of any violence.

The group of young men are all good students, and nice guys. Our son has never been in trouble for anything but a speeding ticket when he was a sophmore (Virginia state trooper). None of the other guys have been in trouble either. We had a party at their house the night before graduation with about 60 people, but we were all inside for a couple of reasons: a thunderstorm blew through early in the evening and...we didn't want the police coming because of any noise. In fact, one of the parents came into the kitchen where I was getting food ready and closed the window--it opens out onto the yard/house of the woman in the neighborhood who represents TP at the Durham City Council!!

We had a wonderful party, and our son has absolutely loved his time at Duke, many terrific memories and he received a great education...but he is leaving with a bitter taste in his mouth, as are we! Mostly at the neighborhood, but also because of the music professor who could care less about the students.

It seems the "Music Professors" of Duke are vying for elevation to associate membership of the Klan of 88.

Is harassing Duke students in Trinity PArk/Heights and ass-creeping the Angry Studies faculty a kind of initiation rite of passage that the odious Zimmermann (who btw, claims to be a Professor, but is listed as a mere "Visiting Instructor" on the Duke Music Faculty Website) and the asinine Philip Rupprecht must go through before the can be inducted into the inner circle of the 88?

Thanks to Anonymous at 12:08 for sharing your TP ListServ messages! It would be great for the record if we can dig them all up. I know there was a great cache of them on Liestoppers.blogspot.com before it was hacked. Could our favorite TP troll have gone after the Liestoppers blog to cover up the evidence? MOO! Gregory

For what it’s worth, KC, I think the exchange in this thread provides an object lesson in how to argue. You put out a simple thesis: that no neighbor made an official complaint about the Lax party being noisy, doing damage or throwing garbage on neighboring properties. You then proceeded to repeatedly come back to this point despite all the straw men and ad hominem attacks on the Lax players thrown up by the visiting troll. I admire you for the logical way you handled this and I mean this quite sincerely. You are an example to all of us on how to handle a debate in a civilized manner—even with a contemptible opponent.

In regard to your 3rd “serious question,” I don’t understand how “Brodhead's statement would appear to be irreconcilable with the assertions in the March 2009 Bell letter”. The Duke University Police Department (DUPD) does not have authority over the Durham Police Department (DPD) during an investigation of an offense occurring within the city of Durham…as the higher ranking law enforcement agency, the DPD can take control of an investigation involving an offense that allegedly occurred within the city limits. Yes, as Ekstrand’s lawsuit points out, 610 N. Buchanan was within the DUPD’s jurisdiction because Duke University bought the house from Guy Solie just weeks before the lacrosse incident. But Ekstrand’s lawsuit claims 610 N. Buchanan was not within the DPD’s jurisdiction…

This isn’t true. In fact, every piece of property in Durham that Duke University owns is within the DPD’s jurisdiction. Ekstrand relies heavily on the “Police Jurisdiction Allocation Agreement” to support his claim even though the agreement refutes his claim. See for yourself…

http://www.ninthstreetlaw.com/docs/1.07-cv-953.pdf

Nowhere in the agreement does it say property of Duke University is not within the jurisdiction of the Durham Police Department. Actually, it says the opposite…

“2.1 The City Law Enforcement Agency shares with the Campus Law Enforcement Agency the authority to investigate any offense on campus.”

Brodhead’s statement was accurate because at the time he made this statement (April 5, 2006) the DPD had assumed authority over the investigation. IMO, Brodhead’s statement does not conflict with the assertion in the “March 2009 Bell letter” that “Duke Campus Police shares joint jurisdiction over off-campus neighborhoods with Durham PD.”

I have never suggested that Durham PD didn't have jurisdiction over the case. They clearly did.

The issue is this odd provision for shared jurisdiction at off-campus addresses (which is very unusual). Your parsing of Brodhead's statement (an argument that Duke would certainly use in a lawsuit regarding that specific statement) reminds me a little of Bill Clinton's statement that it "depends on what the definition of is is." It's technically true, but, at the same time, no one could have come away from the Brodhead statement with the belief that there actually was a shared-jurisdiction arrangement.

The big unanswered question in all of this is who at Duke or in the Duke PD opted out of the shared-jurisdiction arrangement, and when did they decide to do so? At this stage, we simply don't know.

Thanks for responding, Prof. Johnson. Just to be clear, I said that Ekstrand’s lawsuit claims 610 N. Buchanan was not within the Durham PD’s jurisdiction. Here’s a summary of that particular section of the suit…

“The revelation in what we will call the Ekstrand lawsuit, henceforth, that the investigation of Crystal Mangum's false rape claims was not within the jurisdiction of the Durham Police Department, but instead the Duke University Police Department seems to be an enormous one, and the implications of this revelation are extensive indeed.”

Your “big question” is “who at Duke or in the Duke PD opted out of the shared-jurisdiction arrangement, and when did they decide to do so?” What makes you think that anyone at Duke or the Duke PD opted out of the arrangement? The fact that 610 N. Buchanan was within the Duke PD’s jurisdiction is irrelevant, IMO. The Duke PD does not have authority over the Durham PD.

You quote an item from the Ekstrand lawsuit and wrote that "you agree with me that this statement is not true."

I never said the statement is "not true." I don't believe it is correct, but that's a far cry from my saying it's "not true"--which would imply that I was accusing Ekstrand of an ethical impropriety.

With all due respect, I do try to choose my words carefully: if I had intended to say the statement was "not true," I would have used those words.

As to the point: "What makes you think that anyone at Duke or the Duke PD opted out of the arrangement? The fact that 610 N. Buchanan was within the Duke PD’s jurisdiction is irrelevant, IMO. The Duke PD does not have authority over the Durham PD."

Actually, we have no real idea how the arrangement works. What we do know, in this particular case, is that a Duke Police officer (B.S. Jones) investigated Mangum's allegations, found them not credible, and essentially closed the case. The Durham PD then--for reasons never really explained--elected to pursue the investigation despite Duke PD's initial decision.

In a "shared" jurisdictional arrangement, it is most unusual for one of the sharing entities to overrule another on an item in which the first of the two entities already had closed its inquiry and in which the two entities have "shared" jurisdiction.

The three entities you cited have no relevance to the DukePD/DurhamPD arrangement. At the U of W, the policy states that the U of W police exercises "primary policing responsibility" over the designated areas. Ditto with UNC.

In Indiana, the link describes a policy in which campus police can have authority to investigate crimes that occur on campus but which the perpetrator is off-campus. Again, there's a clear line of command, with the campus PD having the jurisdiction, and no "shared" arrangement.

In any of the three arrangements to which you linked, the local PD would have had no jurisdiction at all. Thanks for showing DIW readers just how unusual the "shared" jurisdictional arrangement of the Durham PD and Duke PD actually is.

I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Let’s look at the summary I posted again…

“The revelation in what we will call the Ekstrand lawsuit, henceforth, that the investigation of Crystal Mangum's false rape claims was not within the jurisdiction of the Durham Police Department, but instead the Duke University Police Department seems to be an enormous one, and the implications of this revelation are extensive indeed.” [emphasis added]

“I have never suggested that Durham PD didn't have jurisdiction over the case. They clearly did.”

So, who’s right? You, or the Ekstrand lawsuit?

As for the shared-jurisdiction arrangement…at 10:28 you said: “The issue is this odd provision for shared jurisdiction at off-campus addresses (which is very unusual).”

Through links I demonstrated how this provision is not at all unusual…the jurisdiction of quite a few campus police departments extend off-campus. And, yes, they share their jurisdiction with the local PD as well as the State PD. Every campus police department in America shares their jurisdiction with the local PD and the State PD. When you say – “In any of the three arrangements to which you linked, the local PD would have had no jurisdiction at all” – you’re incorrect. Let’s say there was a hostage situation at UNC-CH and the suspect was still on campus…would you agree that the local PD would have the authority to apprehend the suspect on campus? Or, do you think the local PD would have to defer to the campus PD?

The “Police Jurisdiction Allocation Agreement” between the Duke PD and the Durham PD only broadens the scope of the Duke PD’s jurisdiction. Before this agreement, the Duke PD could not make arrests off-campus. The Durham PD’s jurisdiction remained unchanged because their jurisdiction encompasses the area within Durham city limits…which includes Duke.

Section 2.3 of the agreement reads: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2.1, the City Law Enforcement Agency maintain the authority and primary responsibility to investigate all offenses committed within the Campus Law Enforcement Agency Area of Extended Jurisdiction.”

I believe that my interpretation of the protocol, not Ekstrand's, is correct. That, however, does not mean that I accused in my comment--or am accusing now--Ekstrand of filing a "false" statement, which would be (among other things) a possible ethical breach. People of good faith can disagree on matters of law. Again, if I had meant to say that I believed Ekstrand's interpretation was "false," I would have used the word "false." While I don't always succeed, I do try to choose my words carefully.

As to the other jurisdictional arrangements, again, I thank you for showing just how unusual the "shared" arrangement between the Duke PD and the Durham PD is in comparison to the arrangements at UNC, U of W, and the Indiana schools to which you linked. This is an extremely important point, and I'm going to mention it (with an appropriate hat-tip) in the monthly roundup at the end of May.

For some reason, you seem to think these links prove your point. I look forward to your May roundup…perhaps you’ll try to answer my questions there. I’ll be sure to comment on that thread, too. In the meantime, you may want to research concurrent jurisdictions.

KC Johnson said... Actually, we have no real idea how the arrangement works. What we do know, in this particular case, is that a Duke Police officer (B.S. Jones) investigated Mangum's allegations, found them not credible, and essentially closed the case. The Durham PD then--for reasons never really explained--elected to pursue the investigation despite Duke PD's initial decision.I believe Investigator B.S. Jones was a member of the Durham Police Dept. in March 2006.

I'm a bit confused by the statement, "For some reason, you seem to think these links prove your point," since you hadn't provided those links until your comment.

But many thanks for the additional links, which, again, expose how unusual the Duke PD/Durham PD "shared jurisdiction" arrangement is.

The link to the Diamondback article discussed a policy under consideration.

Missouri-St. Louis: "Organizations affiliated with the University that maintain off-campus facilities come under the jurisdiction of their local police department." Nothing "shared" there regarding off-campus entities.

Millersville: "All criminal prosecutions for offenses taking place on the campus of Millersville University are initiated by the University Police." Again, nothing "shared" about that--a clear line of command.

The closest comparison to the Duke/Durham situation appears to be Palomar College, whose policy states, "For serious Felony crimes, a joint investigative effort is coordinated between the Campus Police Department and the respective adjacent law enforcement agency (i.e. Escondido Police, San Diego Sheriff, etc.)." That returns us to the question I posed earlier in the thread--namely, in this "shared" jurisdictional arrangement, how and why did the Duke PD beg off, especially since their inquiry appeared to have been closed?

The always-wise, the daring yet discreet Prof. Johnson has not seen fit to clear several posts I offered, which sought to further answer another poster's requests for more insights to the Trinity Park Listserve's messages in the immediate wake of the hoax. I tried to offer the raw data for each of us to conclude whether or not, as suggested, a "lynch mob mentality" was generated on Trinity Park Listserve.

I happen to think, as someone who lived there at the time (and as a spouse of a Duke prof) that the TP Listserve was in fact a major moving force that encouraged the frame-up by Liefong.

I think there is substantial evidence to support this idea, although I would have preferred for each visitor here to decide for him/herself.

But I am not griping nor whining about KC's editorial decision -- perhaps he simply did not want to re-post messages that included people's email addresses. Perhaps he felt it was just too much detail for readers who care more about the broader issues, than about the neighborhood aspect. Perhaps he felt that these individual Trinity Park vigilantes do not deserve the same level of scorn as "public" figures like the Duke faculty (although I would respectfully disagree with KC about this, as I think that the entire hoax was fueled as much by bigoted neighbors, as by bigoted faculty). Perhaps KC felt that these TP'ers' vile messages were not meant to be "public", despite the posters' shamelessly issuing their libelous posts to hundreds of members of the public.

Anyway, this is not to complain about the great KC Johnson (as I'm a big fan), but simply to advise anyone who asked for further documentation of the Trinity Park Listserve spews, that there are hundreds of pages of such evidence available. And in my opinion, the bulk of it does support the idea, already suggested, that the TP Listserve was a MAJOR conduit for hate-mongering, in the days ramping up to Liefong's election and his related crimes.

If KC wishes to reconsider, I will re-post some of those Trinity Park Listserve messages, in the interest of letting folks here decide for themselves. And I can delete the TP'ers' email addresses, and/or names, just to protect the GUILTY.

Anyway, be assured that the evidence is "out there". I lived in TP at the time, and was utterly appalled by the way my neighbors' political bigotries overcame their common sense and presumed intelligence. It was all a form of McCarthyism, revised and revisited. And there is a WEALTH of documentary evidence to support what I have said. I realize there may be reasons to prevent my posting direct, verbatim evidence of what I just aid, but it is true regardless.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review